Frank Louis
Some thoughts on absolute truth and the media: separating fact from fiction
By Frank Louis
Recently, following Mitt Romney's victory in the Florida Primary, the Reverend Al Sharpton came on the air and down played Romney's win by saying something like "So what, President Obama received over 4 million votes in Florida when he won it in 2008 compared to Romney's 700,000."
As well, the Reverend Sharpton has been avidly pointing out just how disrespectful conservatives are by sometimes referring to the president by his last name or as name of "Mr. Obama." He even calls this "racist!" Give me a break! Pot calling the kettle black much? I think so. Separating fact from fiction? Let's give it a try.
How many times did anyone hear the liberal media refer to George W Bush as "President Bush," or in other respectful ways? While I have not counted the times, I am sure they are heavily out weighed by the times that the liberal media just called him "Bush" or even "George Bush," or any of the many out and out derogatory terms as was all too common during the Bush-43 presidency.
But I digress. I am addressing the Reverend's use of "facts." On his cable TV show, Sharpton downplayed Romney's recent victory by pointing out how Obama received over 4 million votes in the 2008 general election. This is like some kid trying to win an argument about which of 2 buildings are taller by stating "So what, Saturn has rings around it." I mean really, mixing apples and oranges, muddying the waters of truth and relevance, perhaps some attempt at deception? Come on "Reverend" Do you not have any sense of the truth or are you only trying to distort by comparing facts that are, in and of themselves "true" but have no relative bearing on one another. Al, Read your Bible more... try 1st Corinthians 3:19. You know, the book the nation was founded upon.
For example, if we want to look at and compare the actual relevant facts in Sharpton's nationally broadcast, out and out dumb statement, (making me want to nick name him Al "Dumbton" as well) this is what we learn:
He is correct, Obama won Florida with around 4.1 million votes, followed by McCain with 3.9 million (in round numbers). A difference of about 200,000 votes. Well, what about the primary? It turns out that Romney won last week's Florida Primary (in round numbers) with around 776,000 votes. In 2008, Obama LOST the Florida primry to Hillary Clinton by receiving only 576,000 votes. Why aren't you comparing primary-to-primary Mr. Sharpton? Facts don't work out for you?
Hey, that means that our President Obama received about 200,000 less votes than did Mitt Romney in the recent primary... strangely enough, it is about the same number of votes that made the difference between The McCain campaign being victorious or not there in 2008. Maybe there is something here that needs saying but is just not being stated. Somewhere around 200,000 votes would have made for a McCain victory in Florida in2008... in round numbers. Al, I'm just sayin... apples to apples.
Please, is there anyway that the media (and the politicians alike) can just stick to the facts? It seems that even the alleged "fact checkers" are all too often bias in their reporting and that every juncture is wrought with spin to some degree.
This disregard to the idea of "truth" is an outgrowth of the era in which we live where the idea of any "absolute truth" has been discarded. We are taught this absence of absolute truth in our schools. We all know this has happened, just many of us do not know to what degree it has occurred. I can tell you, it is destroying our nation, and that is "absolute truth!"
The notion that our current president can stand in public and announce that he is in favor of a "level playing field" or "fairness" is ludicrous. It is surely not absolute truth... maybe "his truth," but not an absolute truth. How has any government intervention as of late leveled any playing field... unless destroying the playing field is another form of "leveling." Well, given the absence of any "absolute truth" I guess it is possible, however, not "true."
How well has the attempt at "fairness" in the housing debacle worked out? Let's see, over 11-million homes in foreclosure, property values devastated, people who had spent their lives with good credit, saving money, investing their hard earned money in real estate, only to loose everything they had spend their lives working for? Has there been an objective conversation about this as of yet? I don't recall one. If you want the truth about the housing crisis and the ruin of this nation through wealth redistribution, don't ask those in the housing industry. They have a financial interest in how they "shape the truth" or "spin" the data. Ask people who invested cash if you want absolute truth. I hear the same tired discussion from the experts about people and their "greed" but nothing about the "fair playing field" this fiasco was alleged to create by stripping Americans of the money they paid out of their own pockets in down payments. Oh, the experts... their pockets were pretty well lined through all of this with mortgage backed securities and the like.
People who made down payments of 20 and 30% while realtors, mortgage brokers, and both Fannie and Freddie were taking their commissions and lying about the exposure to sub prime were not either greedy or the problem. As it turns out, their exposure to sub prime was also our exposure to sub prime. Only that we did not know about the exposure to sub prime at the time. As well, people who borrowed money against their solvent real estate investments based on a fraudulently inflated market. They were not the problem either. They were robbed as well, will anyone admit this? While I am all for "fair playing fields" and "equal opportunities," Making millions of Americans poor is not the way to do it.
There is an election in the next few months. Ask the right questions, get the right answers before you vote. Go for the absolute truth. It can be found. Oh yeah, Al, perhaps these are some "actual" facts you might want to investigate... just a thought.
© Frank Louis
February 6, 2012
Recently, following Mitt Romney's victory in the Florida Primary, the Reverend Al Sharpton came on the air and down played Romney's win by saying something like "So what, President Obama received over 4 million votes in Florida when he won it in 2008 compared to Romney's 700,000."
As well, the Reverend Sharpton has been avidly pointing out just how disrespectful conservatives are by sometimes referring to the president by his last name or as name of "Mr. Obama." He even calls this "racist!" Give me a break! Pot calling the kettle black much? I think so. Separating fact from fiction? Let's give it a try.
How many times did anyone hear the liberal media refer to George W Bush as "President Bush," or in other respectful ways? While I have not counted the times, I am sure they are heavily out weighed by the times that the liberal media just called him "Bush" or even "George Bush," or any of the many out and out derogatory terms as was all too common during the Bush-43 presidency.
But I digress. I am addressing the Reverend's use of "facts." On his cable TV show, Sharpton downplayed Romney's recent victory by pointing out how Obama received over 4 million votes in the 2008 general election. This is like some kid trying to win an argument about which of 2 buildings are taller by stating "So what, Saturn has rings around it." I mean really, mixing apples and oranges, muddying the waters of truth and relevance, perhaps some attempt at deception? Come on "Reverend" Do you not have any sense of the truth or are you only trying to distort by comparing facts that are, in and of themselves "true" but have no relative bearing on one another. Al, Read your Bible more... try 1st Corinthians 3:19. You know, the book the nation was founded upon.
For example, if we want to look at and compare the actual relevant facts in Sharpton's nationally broadcast, out and out dumb statement, (making me want to nick name him Al "Dumbton" as well) this is what we learn:
He is correct, Obama won Florida with around 4.1 million votes, followed by McCain with 3.9 million (in round numbers). A difference of about 200,000 votes. Well, what about the primary? It turns out that Romney won last week's Florida Primary (in round numbers) with around 776,000 votes. In 2008, Obama LOST the Florida primry to Hillary Clinton by receiving only 576,000 votes. Why aren't you comparing primary-to-primary Mr. Sharpton? Facts don't work out for you?
Hey, that means that our President Obama received about 200,000 less votes than did Mitt Romney in the recent primary... strangely enough, it is about the same number of votes that made the difference between The McCain campaign being victorious or not there in 2008. Maybe there is something here that needs saying but is just not being stated. Somewhere around 200,000 votes would have made for a McCain victory in Florida in2008... in round numbers. Al, I'm just sayin... apples to apples.
Please, is there anyway that the media (and the politicians alike) can just stick to the facts? It seems that even the alleged "fact checkers" are all too often bias in their reporting and that every juncture is wrought with spin to some degree.
This disregard to the idea of "truth" is an outgrowth of the era in which we live where the idea of any "absolute truth" has been discarded. We are taught this absence of absolute truth in our schools. We all know this has happened, just many of us do not know to what degree it has occurred. I can tell you, it is destroying our nation, and that is "absolute truth!"
The notion that our current president can stand in public and announce that he is in favor of a "level playing field" or "fairness" is ludicrous. It is surely not absolute truth... maybe "his truth," but not an absolute truth. How has any government intervention as of late leveled any playing field... unless destroying the playing field is another form of "leveling." Well, given the absence of any "absolute truth" I guess it is possible, however, not "true."
How well has the attempt at "fairness" in the housing debacle worked out? Let's see, over 11-million homes in foreclosure, property values devastated, people who had spent their lives with good credit, saving money, investing their hard earned money in real estate, only to loose everything they had spend their lives working for? Has there been an objective conversation about this as of yet? I don't recall one. If you want the truth about the housing crisis and the ruin of this nation through wealth redistribution, don't ask those in the housing industry. They have a financial interest in how they "shape the truth" or "spin" the data. Ask people who invested cash if you want absolute truth. I hear the same tired discussion from the experts about people and their "greed" but nothing about the "fair playing field" this fiasco was alleged to create by stripping Americans of the money they paid out of their own pockets in down payments. Oh, the experts... their pockets were pretty well lined through all of this with mortgage backed securities and the like.
People who made down payments of 20 and 30% while realtors, mortgage brokers, and both Fannie and Freddie were taking their commissions and lying about the exposure to sub prime were not either greedy or the problem. As it turns out, their exposure to sub prime was also our exposure to sub prime. Only that we did not know about the exposure to sub prime at the time. As well, people who borrowed money against their solvent real estate investments based on a fraudulently inflated market. They were not the problem either. They were robbed as well, will anyone admit this? While I am all for "fair playing fields" and "equal opportunities," Making millions of Americans poor is not the way to do it.
There is an election in the next few months. Ask the right questions, get the right answers before you vote. Go for the absolute truth. It can be found. Oh yeah, Al, perhaps these are some "actual" facts you might want to investigate... just a thought.
© Frank Louis
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
